I was opposed to the Soviet attempt to colonize Afghanistan because it was equivalent to the US "presence" in Vietnam. Back then it was hard to imagine anything like the Taliban happening anywhere; indeed it was hard to foresee what the Twelvers would get up to next door, which is bad enough.

Of course when you look at photos like these you've got to understand such "Westernized" people comprised the richest few percent of Afghans, the upper-middles who ran things for them, and their clerical help; such people who could took off when the Stalinists took over, long before there was any real need to.

Outside the biggest metro areas it was always medieval, full of mullahs farking goats.

While on vacation, I watched a story on AlJazeera about two Afghan women who had been attacked by their husbands. One had her lips and nose cut and was severely beaten, the other was killed and chopped into pieces. The police and everyone knew who committed the crimes, but both husbands are still free. They will likely never face punishment.

Iran. Iraq. Afghanistan. All of these countries have legitimate beefs with US foreign policy, and the meddling in their affairs. Iran was one of the most progressive democracies in the Middle East before the US, Great Britain and BP helped engineer a return of the Shah. Iraq wasn't as progressive, but was on track, until it ran afoul of US interests. Afghanistan had its issues, but between the Soviets and the American interest in their nation, and our backing folks with a LOT of munitions, with NO assistance once they ousted the Soviets, yeah, the Taliban went to work on whipping things into shape as they saw fit.

The anger in these countries isn't about our freedoms. It isn't about our faith. It isn't about Israel even--though in part, keeping these nations rife with internal struggles and under the thumb of theocrats without much interest in actually building or educating their people in a modern sense IS in Israel's interests--it's about actions. Actions that have impacted their nations fair severely.

Until we understand this, we aren't going to make any headway. At some point, WE need to apologize and try to set things right. Not by imposing MOAR sanctions, not by demanding compliant leadership, not by tearing down their governments, but by helping them achieve their own goals, and help them back into the circle of nations, and not just by shipping oil out, or letting contractors in.

These nations are the way they are today, because of things we did. To them. Years ago. Direct actions. Actions through intermediaries to give us "deniability." Actions that set their nations back generations. We did this, and the anger is real, and it is even justified.

Does this mean that the support of terrorism is just? Nope. But it is understandable. Like Chris Rock said, "you gotta look at OJ's situation. He's paying $25,000 a month in alimony, got another man driving around in his car and f*cking his wife in a house he's still paying the mortgage on. Now I'm not saying he should have killed her... but I understand." These are folks who have turned to the only folks who have had any success in driving the point home, here and abroad. We created these monsters, and sadly, our actions in the last twenty years are only creating more.

At some point, we're going to have to come to terms with it. And then do something other than shoot the ones who have reached a limit to how much more meddling they'll stand, or the ones who've been raised by folks who are just sick and tired of the busllsh*t excuses that we've given over the years.

hubiestubert:Iran. Iraq. Afghanistan. All of these countries have legitimate beefs with US foreign policy, and the meddling in their affairs. Iran was one of the most progressive democracies in the Middle East before the US, Great Britain and BP helped engineer a return of the Shah. Iraq wasn't as progressive, but was on track, until it ran afoul of US interests. Afghanistan had its issues, but between the Soviets and the American interest in their nation, and our backing folks with a LOT of munitions, with NO assistance once they ousted the Soviets, yeah, the Taliban went to work on whipping things into shape as they saw fit.

The anger in these countries isn't about our freedoms. It isn't about our faith. It isn't about Israel even--though in part, keeping these nations rife with internal struggles and under the thumb of theocrats without much interest in actually building or educating their people in a modern sense IS in Israel's interests--it's about actions. Actions that have impacted their nations fair severely.

Until we understand this, we aren't going to make any headway. At some point, WE need to apologize and try to set things right. Not by imposing MOAR sanctions, not by demanding compliant leadership, not by tearing down their governments, but by helping them achieve their own goals, and help them back into the circle of nations, and not just by shipping oil out, or letting contractors in.

These nations are the way they are today, because of things we did. To them. Years ago. Direct actions. Actions through intermediaries to give us "deniability." Actions that set their nations back generations. We did this, and the anger is real, and it is even justified.

Does this mean that the support of terrorism is just? Nope. But it is understandable. Like Chris Rock said, "you gotta look at OJ's situation. He's paying $25,000 a month in alimony, got another man driving around in his car and f*cking his wife in a house he's still paying the mortgage on. Now I'm not saying he ...

So appeasement? That's your answer?

I agree we've created a rabid dog in multiple points the world over, but letting it run free isn't a solution. Caging it, paying off its offspring with food and then killing the older generation is the only thing that's going to let us move forward.

If you let the offended run things, they're correctly going to bite that which attacked them. That dog has to be put down, but the next generation can learn that there's good to be had by cooperating.

I agree we've created a rabid dog in multiple points the world over, but letting it run free isn't a solution. Caging it, paying off its offspring with food and then killing the older generation is the only thing that's going to let us move forward.

If you let the offended run things, they're correctly going to bite that which attacked them. That dog has to be put down, but the next generation can learn that there's good to be had by cooperating.

It's interesting that your thought of accepting responsibility is "appeasement." It says a bit more about your own thinking.

I wasn't kidding, in that the first step with all of these folks is an actual apology. In order to make any real headway, we have to actually accept that we've done them wrong, address that wrong, and work from there to help set things right.

If you make a mistake, is it "appeasement" to accept your own culpability? We created monsters in these nations. We fed them, we armed them, and we set them loose. We back monsters across the globe, and are then we dare to be surprised when they turn on us? In Afghanistan, we backed monsters, and armed them, and then abandoned them, with no skills at nation building, an economy and nation in ruins, and are we are surprised that these folks screwed up their country, and we KNEW what these folks were when we armed them to run up against the Soviets, and that was fine, because they were pointing guns at the folks we didn't like. We've backed monsters again and again. We've built them up, and then set them up against folks, and we are surprised that they harbor some ill will at their treatment?

At some point we have to accept our responsibility, and actually do something useful, as opposed to continuing the cycle of revenge, ill will, and resentment. That's not appeasement, that's being a f*cking adult about the damn things we've done. And have allowed to be done in our names.

Shooting more folks isn't going to make that resentment go away. It hasn't worked for Israel, it hasn't worked for the Russians, and the only way it's ever worked for the Chinese, is shooting EVERYONE in a region, and then sending in new folks to replace them. Taking responsibility is exactly the opposite of "letting them run free"; it is the only sane option.

hubiestubert:It's interesting that your thought of accepting responsibility is "appeasement." It says a bit more about your own thinking.

Accepting responsibility isn't appeasement. What I find interesting about YOUR line of thought is that you think you can negotiate with a monster you created. You can't. You can negotiate with the next generation and that REQUIRES accepting responsibility, but the horse is out of the barn for the people we are currently fighting.

And we don't necessarily have to kill the current generation, since I agree that will make it worse. What we need to do is make them irrelevant by backing the next generation.

Lsherm:hubiestubert: It's interesting that your thought of accepting responsibility is "appeasement." It says a bit more about your own thinking.

Accepting responsibility isn't appeasement. What I find interesting about YOUR line of thought is that you think you can negotiate with a monster you created. You can't. You can negotiate with the next generation and that REQUIRES accepting responsibility, but the horse is out of the barn for the people we are currently fighting.

And we don't necessarily have to kill the current generation, since I agree that will make it worse. What we need to do is make them irrelevant by backing the next generation.

What does proper nation building look like?

1) leave them alone and let them do whatever they want. YUCK.2) do what we did. YUCK3) figure out something which has some hope at all of working. hard, but the only viable option

sorry about all the fark ups, but that wasnt me, that isnt now, and nothing will undo what was done.

One option is to acknowledge that there are parts of the world which ... nothing can be done.And not care that they are what they are.Interdict them. Let em do what they want inside their country and kill/shoot down anyone that leaves.

It is interesting that you dont hear a lot about how to fix places like Somalia, Haiti, NK, etc etc etc

Lsherm:hubiestubert: It's interesting that your thought of accepting responsibility is "appeasement." It says a bit more about your own thinking.

Accepting responsibility isn't appeasement. What I find interesting about YOUR line of thought is that you think you can negotiate with a monster you created. You can't. You can negotiate with the next generation and that REQUIRES accepting responsibility, but the horse is out of the barn for the people we are currently fighting.

And we don't necessarily have to kill the current generation, since I agree that will make it worse. What we need to do is make them irrelevant by backing the next generation.

Negotiation is only possible when there is a solid and coherent leadership.

There isn't with Jihadists. There isn't with disparate tribes, and factions either.

We can only negotiate when there is stability enough for a leadership to cohere. Iran is a different animal than Iraq. Iran, despite its problems, IS a nation that is united and with a solid leadership, and one that has a long memory. Iraq? We broke that country, plain and simple. We broke it, we let it dive into factionalism and chaos, and then we wound up with more strife than we went in--and worse, we erected a weak leadership that is likely to fall over entirely soon enough, and plunge the nation into the hands of folks who REALLY dislike not just us, but a damn lot of each other, and with grudges aplenty. Afghanistan? Barely united even before the Soviets, and with deep internal squabbles, and after its abandonment, and their ill use by the US, those oddly enough, exploded all over the place, and with a LOT of weapons and grudges anew.

Stability has to come from investing not just in troops, but investing in infrastructure, education, and forging alliances not just with us, but with one another. We have to offer more choices than guns, God, or glory. And that's not going to come about with putting vulture capitalists in charge of reconstruction. That's not going to come about with putting private contractors out to do "security" without oversight and immunity from prosecution. The approach has been to pacify in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to sequester in Iran, and that's just not cutting it. It's only making folks more entrenched. We need better solutions than just hunting down folk's brothers and sisters and cousins, and asking them to choose between family and a nebulous "better tomorrow"--especially given that these folks have a fair experience already with such plans and discussions. We need to help them find that stability, and find their own path.

We got into a lot of this mess, when we looked the other way when the Brits dismantled Iran's democracy. We looked the other way, when we armed the Taliban, and set them loose on the Soviets. We looked the other way, when Iraq was belligerent to Iran, who we really didn't like at the time.

With Iran, we need to acknowledge our culpability. That will go a long ways with the people, and their leadership. Theirs is a long standing and valid anger. With Afghanistan, our neglect fractured the nation and our tinpot crazies made it into their own image, which we accepted when we called them "freedom fighters." We need better investment, they need real education, and better opportunities than selling poppies to feed their families up in the hills, and real security in their own nation. Iraq we just shattered, plain and simple, and that one is a convoluted issue, because they aren't uneducated hill people, and they likewise know exactly what was done, and why, and ultimately, we are going to have chase down a lot of them, because before we went in, they actually weren't terribly radicalized. We've given them a few reasons to be so now, and our involvement let in a lot of folks who weren't in the mix before we came.

None of these nations needs "appeasement" but all of them need us to be gottverdammt adults when we go to the table, and in Iraq and Afghanistan, we need to actually build a damn table for them to sit down at first.

Starting your argument with a buzz-word meant to create negativity based on nothing other than the buzz-word is not going to get you very far. It's like using the word "denier" in a climate change thread... you lose all credibility the second you say it.

I agree we've created a rabid dog in multiple points the world over, but letting it run free isn't a solution.

Umm... we ARE the rabid dog.

Caging it, paying off its offspring with food and then killing the older generation is the only thing that's going to let us move forward.

If you let the offended run things, they're correctly going to bite that which attacked them. That dog has to be put down, but the next generation can learn that there's good to be had by cooperating.

Would that work if a foreign country did to us what we've done to them? Would YOU cooperate with them? Me, I'd learn how to build a remote-controlled bomb and set it by the side of the road, waiting for them to drive by. And I'd also kill any Americans who cooperated with them. Unlike hubiestubert, I think that their terrorism and attempts at terrorism is totally justified... how else can you fight an enemy that is 100 years more technologically advanced and has 10,000 times the money to wage war with? You wouldn't box by the rules if you fought Joe Frazier in his prime, would you?

Throughout 1978 and 1979, the communists in charge of Afghanistan tried to extend the idea of women's rights out into the countryside and set up literacy schools for rural Afghan women. This is what really freaked out the Mujahadeen and the mullahs, who attacked the schools and killed many of the students and teachers. That's when the government in Kabul called in the Soviets, who sent in their military to quell the fundamentalists at the end of December 1979.

"The Communists were trying to change the law of God. They wanted to destroy Islamic traditions -- to rid Afghanistan of poverty and make everyone equal. This is against the law of Islam -- God has decided who is rich and who is poor. It can't be changed by Communists. It's beyond imagination." Sahar Gul, Mullah Laghman Province (CNN Cold War: Soldiers of God, 1998)

The fact of the matter is that the democratization of power is what led to the widespread takeover of conservative islam in Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan. The revolutions that over threw the Shah, the Soviets and Saddam were what allowed the conservatives to come to power. Look what happened to Egypt. They elected that whacko Morsi and he appointed the guy responsible for machine gunning scores of Swiss tourists to be his minister of tourism. The military saw how that would play in the west and kicked his ass out.

Paul Theroux's The Great Railway Bazaar was published in 1977 just before everything went to shiat and it was about his train trip from London to Calcutta crossing through Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Still a great read and an object lesson in democracy. Nobody ever remembers Hitler was democratically elected.

bigworld2000:Throughout 1978 and 1979, the communists in charge of Afghanistan tried to extend the idea of women's rights out into the countryside and set up literacy schools for rural Afghan women. This is what really freaked out the Mujahadeen and the mullahs, who attacked the schools and killed many of the students and teachers. That's when the government in Kabul called in the Soviets, who sent in their military to quell the fundamentalists at the end of December 1979.

"The Communists were trying to change the law of God. They wanted to destroy Islamic traditions -- to rid Afghanistan of poverty and make everyone equal. This is against the law of Islam -- God has decided who is rich and who is poor. It can't be changed by Communists. It's beyond imagination." Sahar Gul, Mullah Laghman Province (CNN Cold War: Soldiers of God, 1998)

Intelligent and stupid people, respectively, often examine the same facts, and arrive at different conclusions.Upon examining the facts at hand here, and intelligent person might conclude that religious fanatics and fundamentalists are an obstacle to human progress, and should be blocked from power as much as possible.A stupid person might conclude that "Muslims are bad", and that we need to bankrupt ourselves in a futile attempt to kill them all.Same facts - different brains.

bigworld2000:Throughout 1978 and 1979, the communists in charge of Afghanistan tried to extend the idea of women's rights out into the countryside and set up literacy schools for rural Afghan women. This is what really freaked out the Mujahadeen and the mullahs, who attacked the schools and killed many of the students and teachers. That's when the government in Kabul called in the Soviets, who sent in their military to quell the fundamentalists at the end of December 1979.